Outrage!

Let me say that again - Outrage!

In truth I don't know what outrages me more.

The horrific slaughter of 298 innocents by Russia or its allies.  Or, the feeble response from Western governments.

Russia, throughout the 20th century displayed a gross disregard for the lives of innocents.  Much is made of the sacrifices made by the Russian military and civilians, during the Second World War, however, far more people died at the hands of Stalin and his communist successors, than ever died at the hands of the German Wehrmacht.  Estimates put the number in the 20 million range. 

So you can perhaps understand, that from the viewpoint of an old-style Russian leader like Vladimir Putin, the downing of a civilian jet, with the loss of the 298 people on board, is a mere blip on the radar.  Barely noticeable, in the 'noise' as some might say.  Remember Comrade, this is all in the cause of protecting Rodina - Mother Russia.

In fairness, you can see that it is not really out of character for a Russian leader to show such disregard for human life.  You might say, it's the Russian way.  In keeping with communist teachings, making omelets requires the breaking of eggs!  In order to protect Russia and to have friendly satellites around the mother-land, to act as buffer zones, some lives must be sacrificed for the greater good.  It's the Soviet way, it's the Communist way, it's the Russian way.

What though of the reaction from the West?

Other than 1 of the 193 Dutch victims, having dual US citizenship, the USA suffered no victims.  So Obama's administration can say that 'this isn't our fight' and can continue its 'pivot to Asia'.  The land of the 'city on the hill' simply turns its back on its European allies and allows the Russian Bear to kill innocents with impunity.   There is talk that Russia's recent belligerency is a reaction to American-led NATO placing advanced anti-missile systems in Poland.  It seems that President Obama has reworked President Roosevelt's 'speak softly and carry a big stick' quote to form the Obama Doctrine ' Speak often and vacuously, carry a big stick but leave it in someone else's back yard, for them to carry the can'

The European Union?

193 Dutch citizens, 10 British, 4 each from Germany and Belgium all perished and all that is spoken of are minor sanctions.  Russia will see its caviar exports plummet also sales of those Russian dolls but, in a conciliatory gesture and to show that the EU wants to avoid exacerbating the situation, Germany will continue to receive 40% of its energy needs from Russia.   The South East of Britain will continue to enjoy a high-end property boom, fueled by Russian oligarch money.

We have no leaders today worthy of the title.  None.  Spouting empty words about 'last chances' and 'enhanced sanctions' will not worry the Russians.  History shows that only strong action will bring Russia into the fold of civilised nations.  Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher didn't flinch from taking resolute action against Russia.  Reagan even imposed sanctions on American companies that had business with Russia.  The actions of Reagan and Thatcher brought about the downfall of the Soviet regime and freed the buffer-state slaves of Eastern Europe.  These victories are now in peril.  Someone said that democracy is a delicate plant that can always wither inside a generation, if it is not nurtured.  That is so true today, where Russia is expanding, westwards and it sees no opposition to such expansion.

What do I want?

Well, firstly I don't want war.  Though, as we have seen in the past, appeasement of bullies tends to lead to an inevitable war.  So current actions might be said to just be deferring rather than avoiding.

I want meaningful and penalising sanctions to be imposed.  I want Russia to hurt and to understand that they cannot kill people with impunity.  Be it 298 people on a passenger plane or a dissident like Alexander Litvinenko, brutally killed by the FGB, in London

Freeze Russia's overseas assets.  Do it overnight and without warning.  There were very strong stories/rumours that many Russian oligarchs and criminals managed to extricate much of their ill-gotten loot, out of Cyprus before the hammer dropped on bank depositors, and so they avoided the impact, having been tipped-off about the chance of this happening. 

Cease all flights to and from Russia.  Isolate them.  Cancel all cultural links and swaps of art etc..

Cut-off diplomatic ties.  Send their ambassadors home and recall ours.

Do not participate in any event where there are Russians.  A United Nations discussion?  Walk out.  UN Security Council?  Refuse to participate if there is a Russian there.  Indeed, seek the removal of Russia as a permanent member and refuse to fund UN institutions until the West gets its way!  It's not as if the UN likes the West, anyway.  So this is a time for the rest of the World to decide if they are with the West or with Russia - the middle ground is currently fully occupied by the bodies of 298 innocents!

Cite them for crimes against humanity at the International Court.  'Them' being Putin and his cabinet and military leaders and the Ukrainian separatist leaders.

Commit, now, to not participating in the 2018 football World Cup.  Let the corrupt officials at FIFA and the murderous Russian regime proceed with a tournament without the West.   No 'Socceroos' from Australia, who lost 27 of its citizens to state-sponsored murder.  No holders, Germany. No England or Belgium or Holland.  I have already said, here  http://bit.ly/TIXmPC that countries should leave the corrupt FIFA and so now there is an even higher moral reason to do so.

Germany needs to re-open its nuclear plants and all of Western Europe needs to start exploiting its energy resources to the full - drill, baby, drill, to coin a phrase - so that it can overcome its dangerous over-dependence on Russian energy sources.

So, economic war.

The alternative?  Get used to seeing more funeral corteges such as was recently seen in Holland.  Rows of hearses waiting to collect the bodies of the innocents.  298  this time.  How many next time or the time after that?

Here is a question for you.  If it takes the deaths of 298 people to go unanswered, so that Germany and British and Dutch and Belgium lights can be kept on, how many deaths does it take to switch them off?   

Conservatives - The way forward - Part Two

The previous post on this issue dealt mostly with economic matters.  Today I want to expand on ways that the UK Conservative party can return to its roots and present a conservative alternative to the leftist policies put forward by the Labour Welfare party and the Liberal Democrats.

Some that read the previous post will no doubt have thought that the spending side changes were lacking in detail but please read on and maybe this will help to fill in the gaps and demonstrate how the Conservatives can take a step, a yard or two 'rightwards' and bring Britain beading into the right direction.

Crime
Let's start here.  I believe that the true conservative way is not about trying to 'understand crime and the causes of crime'.  We can leave that to those on the left who see that all of society's problems can be put down to being the responsibility of 'society' rather than being the responsibility of the individual.  In fact that really is the core of the difference between Conservatives and leftists.  Conservatives believe in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, whereas the left always seeks to subsume the individual into the collectivist state, where no one has responsibility (but just to prove it, they will commission a publicly funded enquiry or review with a pre-conceived outcome, saying that provision by the 'state' is best!). 

For Conservatives, crime should be about law enforcement.  Not about creating more and more laws but about enforcing the ones we have and enforcement, as the word suggests, should mean the strength and power of society coming to bear on those that infringe the laws that society, collectively pass.

For criminals, prison should be a deterrent.  That means the conditions need to be harsh, harder than those that prevail on the outside.  So no access to television or computers or the internet.  No access to drugs.  Regular but random searches  of the prisoner and cell.  Long periods where they are simply locked-up.  

Leftists regularly talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Prison should be about rehabilitation.  The rate of recidivism is high because of society, etc. 

I would posit that as a means of rehabilitation, prison mostly doesn't work.  There will be some that are so traumatised by the event that they never commit another crime but many are career criminals and they 'need' to commit crimes to fund the lifestyle that they (and certain sympathisers) believe that they are entitled to live.

In relation to criminals, Conservatives should put forward policies that put criminals behind bars and, leave them there and make their stay in prison a 'hard' experience.   I don't believe that society can rid itself of criminals in the true sense, all we can (and should) do is to get them off of our streets..

While we are at it, why do prisons need to be so conveniently located?  As part of the necessary prison reforms, build new prisons in more remote and inhospitable places rather than in city centres!  The message needs to be clear.  We don't care for prisoner welfare - prison is to be about punishment - we only care for the victims of crime. Period, as Americans say.

Speaking of Americans, how about a three strikes and you're out rule.  Something like, anyone that is convicted for the third time, for an offence that carries a sentence of greater than 5 years, then that individual, on the sentence for the third offence, has 10 years added to the sentence.  If after release, there is a fourth offence, then  the next conviction would automatically carry a life sentence.

Which neatly brings me to sentencing and particularly life sentences.  Put simply, the current parole system kicks in way too early.   We have had the spectacle of convicted Members of Parliament being released just a few weeks into a six month sentence.  They though, are not alone.  Criminals seem to be eligible for parole once they have completed one third of their sentence and, because of so called 'overcrowding' the impetus is to err on the side of releasing them.  The 'overcrowding' is a myth.  See above!  Prison isn't about being a holiday camp.  Multiple cell occupancy is a must - I wouldn't have any problem in recommending dormitory style accommodation rather than the 'own room' hotel-like comforts that some now enjoy.

A life sentence should be seen as a serious deterrent.  So 'life' should mean a minimum of 20 years served (I wouldn't argue too strongly if someone said it should be 25 years).  Remember, the Conservative way is that criminals should be put away!  We believe that we cannot cure or rehabilitate some people, so the only solution is to take those people out of circulation for a long time.

It will come as no surprise that a Conservative does not allow prisoners the right to vote, while they are prisoners.

Social Matters
I am not in favour of abortion.  I simply think it is wrong.  I think that Britain has allowed itself to be a place where abortions are so readily available  and publicly funded on the most false of pretences.  The 1967 abortion Act (as amended down the years) keeps on talking about the abortion being needed to 'prevent a grave threat to the mother'.

A 'grave' threat.   I seriously doubt that most of the cases where an abortion is carried out, truly represent a 'grave' threat to the mental or physical condition of the mother.  I do accept that for some an unexpected pregnancy could be 'inconvenient'.  It might impinge on the career prospects of the mother or the lifestyle but surely these cannot be said to be 'grave' reasons?

Needless to say, the rights of the unborn child are never considered.  Around 200,000 babies are aborted each year, in Britain and the media and others are more concerned about some TB-carrying badgers being culled.  Warped priorities doesn't really come close.

So, the rules on abortions need to be more strictly enforced.  The nature of the 'grave' risk needs to be clearly found and 'inconvenience' not be a reason for foetal murder.

Abortion on the NHS to no longer be state-funded.  If someone wants an abortion, then that person should pay for it.  Much as one might say, in relation to crime, 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' so in respect of abortion, one has to consider that the plethora of contraceptive options that are available should preclude the requirement for just about any abortions.

Same-Sex Marriage - regular readers will be aware of my views on this.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Any legislation that says to the contrary, to be repealed.

Education reform is now underway, with the 'free schools' programme.  This needs to be enhanced.  We need to get government, in any form,  out of the class-room.  Taxpayer funding of education, through a voucher system should be the extent of governmental involvement.

Foreign relations

Let's start with the European Union.  Throughout the time of its membership, Britain has been seen as a difficult member  of the EU.  Conservatives look at the free trade aspects and think that this is good but then we worry about the subsidies that are paid to various industries.   Worry turns to grave (proper use of the word) concern  for just about everything else that the EU does. 

I have just been reading 'How we invented freedom' by Daniel Hannan - highly recommended!

In this book Hannan captures the historical 'separatedness' of  Britain.  We are not part of Europe.  Geographically, we are on the fringe but politically, Britain has, for more than a thousand years, had a different approach to political matters and how society manages its affairs.  Our history is one where government is answerable to the people.  Where no person or organisation, is above the law.  Where the rights of the individual are understood and protected.  These are not concepts that are universally held within the EU.  Where something more than lip-service, to these practices, is followed, this is a new concept and its very immaturity poses a risk. 

Therefore, Conservatives need to dis-engage from the European Union, as the number one foreign priority.  Ignore all of the threats about lost trade opportunities etc..  These are empty.  People in other nations buy products or services from Britain because what is offered is of the required quality and at the right price.  If that quality or price were to change, after Britain exits the EU, I would suspect it to only be for the better.

While we are on dis-engagement, the UK should leave the United Nations.  This organisation has outlived its usefulness.  As evidence - the massacre at Srebrenica happened while the people were ostensibly under UN protection, the UN appointed Gadaffi's Libya to the UN Human Rights body! Time to leave and forgo the lectures from the various fools that populate that body.

Scotland 
On September 18, 214, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum on 'independence'.  'Independence' is written so because it's kind of a strange independence that moves from a union of equals - where Scottish votes have the same weight as English, Welsh or Northern Irish  votes do -   to a place where most policies are set by a foreign wanne-be supra power - the EU

Anyway, if Scotland stays within the Union, all well and good.  However, there should not then be any kind of further devolution of powers to Scotland as some kind of thank you or sop to the Nationalists. 

If the Scots choose to secede from the Union, then we will be sad to see them go but would wish them well.  However, they take with them a proportionate share of liabilities of UK Inc. and we should not offer them any kind of currency union.

BBC
The Conservatives must end the TV tax - aka TV licence.  Nothing more to be said!

Energy
Much as Conservatives are against subsidies, it is clear, that since the long term energy needs of Britain, will require a very large element of nuclear power in the mix, then state subsidy is required to support the economics.

In terms of Shale gas, we need to be realistic.  This does offer an opportunity for exploitation of our natural resources but we need to recognise that this is not a 'silver bullet'.  Recovering this resource will not be easy but it will be a little easier to get the large number of land drilling rigs mobilised and natural gas companies involved, if government views the opportunity as one of national strategic importance and lets companies drill.  As in, bring the full force of the law down on 'nimbys' and eco-activists and push through exploration and then, hopefully development, plans.

In the interim, Conservatives should support the British national interest and cease the closure of coal and gas fired power stations.  This will avert the next big crisis that is looming.

Charity
Two things.
Firstly, make all charitable giving tax deductible to the extent of 120%.  So if I donate £100 to a registered charity, I can deduct £120 from my pre-tax income.
Next, ban charities from public advocacy and lobbying.  Require that for them to retain the status of a 'registered charity' a minimum of 75% of all funds raised must be spent directly on the stated beneficiaries of the charity.  So overheads - cost of raising funds and employing charity workers - cannot exceed 25% of funds raised.  I don't like interfering but, one step further, no employee of a charity to be paid more than 3 times the national average wage - currently around £75,000.

Red Tape
Conservatives should be in the business of small government.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I work 40, 48 or 60 hours a week - Small government says that this is an issue for my employer and I.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I sell bananas (straight or slightly curved) in lbs or kgs - that is between my customers and I.

So along with a bonfire of quangos, a bonfire of regulations.  All regulations at the national and local level would be reviewed within a two year timeline.  The review would look at each regulation and consider the full costs of the regulation and the expected financial benefits of same.     Any national regulation, where the financial benefits do not exceed the costs by 25%, scrap the regulation.  Any where the benefits exceed by greater than 25%, have them reviewed and approved by Parliament.  For local regulations the benefit requirement for retention raised to being greater than 50% of costs.

Any regulation retained, to be reviewed every 3 years to see if it still meets the same cost/benefit thresholds.

All new regulations to have the test first applied, but the benefit threshold to be 30% and 60% respectively.

Scotland again - Some Clarity?

The Secretary of State for Scotland - Michael Moore -  is to clarify the legal position as regards a referendum on Scottish independence.

Since the power to change the constitutional status of Scotland is a retained power, the legal situation can only be changed by the parliament of the UK - i.e. the one at Westminster.  Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies must know this.  So why all of the bluster about Westminster interference?

I retain the view that the SNP and particularly the wily Alex, both want their cake and to eat it.  They want 'devo max' where they get control of all matters of policy within Scotland while having no responsibility for paying for it.  So they (or the Scottish Parliament) set a spending policy and the cost of this, short of any locally raised taxation, is borne by the UK government and taxpayer.

They want to have a power out of all proportion to their contribution to the UK economy and the UK population.

If they want to look at or have the Scottish electorate look at 'devo-max'  then the rest of the UK must be consulted.  How can they or any sane person think it is right for the Scots electorate to have the right to write a cheque for the rest of the UK economy and people, to pay?

Blogs and comment boards are buzzing since David Cameron's announcement.  I will try and address the various themes here.

Who votes on the Union?
This falls into those that say, only Scotland should vote on the matter versus those that say since it affects the UK, both sides of the border should be consulted.
In some respects I suppose it depends on what is the question.  If it is a simple In or Out then I can have some sympathy with just the Scots electorate being consulted for their advisory position.

If though, the question is wider and looks for greater powers for the Scottish executive, then both sides need to be consulted.

Assuming an In or Out question, whatever the response, the issue still rests with Westminster for action and not Edinburgh.  Clearly that is the legal position.

Who votes?  
This would be the relevant electorate according to the rules usually prevailing in the UK.  If it is a referendum only in Scotland then those resident in Scottish constituencies and eligible to vote, would be entitled to vote - no expatriate Scots, no exclusion of non 'Scots' (whatever that means).  Simple - if you are legally on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, then you can vote.  Same rules would apply for a UK-wide referendum.


Scottish economy 1
There has been much to and fro on the sustainability of an independent Scottish economy.  I suspect that they would struggle and living standards would decline and both personal and corporate taxes would rise.

I am sure that much will be made of this during the referendum campaign and that we will all be confused and really none the wiser - those so called 'independent' economists will likely have an 'axe to grind' and their own agenda but I guess we may get a reasonable sense of how the Scottish economy might make out.

One point that I hope is addressed, is the relocation, if there is a vote for independence, of the UK government offices that are currently located in Scotland - the central tax offices etc.


Scottish Economy 2
The rules surrounding the UK oilfields are governed by International law and so they will need to be followed.  How to apportion the relevant share of National Debt is somewhat more complex as I doubt this can easily be identified as being for Scottish purposes or for UK purposes.  I would expect that this would need to be proportioned on relative shares of the national UK economy.
This would also need to apply to pension liabilities for civil servants employed in Scotland.

For shares in the nationalized banks, these would be shared on the same basis.  I don't subscribe to the view that the UK should be compensated by an independent Scotland for the bail-out of RBS or HBOS.  What happened when we were in the Union was for the benefit of all of us.   We must start from a point in time and go forward, not go back over  300+ years of history.  

Scotland and the EU
There seems to be an assumption that Scotland will, upon 'independence' automatically be a member of the EU.  I would be interested to hear why people think this is so.  I would suggest that if the independence vote succeeds, then the UK probably ceases to exist and both the UK rump (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and newly independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU. 

This would likely require that both adopt the Euro currency, assuming it still exists at that time.   So in some ways, a referendum on Scottish independence might give all UK citizens the long-denied referendum on EU membership!

I would guess something similar for the UN and the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council would apply and indeed the Commonwealth.

Afterwards
What happens if Scotland is given a vote on a straight In or Out question and the answer is to stay In?  I don't see this as the demise of the SNP but believe that you might see a re-alignment in Scotland with perhaps something less polarized along the left-socialist axis.

If the answer is No, I would hope that having had the referendum and had an answer, the issue could be put to bed for a reasonable period of time  - 25-30 years as a minimum.

Comment
Feel free to comment - I will publish all, whether you agree with me or not, except those that are abusive or use foul language.